4 ms·

> You pay for the cost of government elementary schools even if you homeschool your kids and you receive the benefit of living in a society where most people h

by imgabe 10y ago

> You pay for the cost of government elementary schools even if you homeschool your kids and you receive the benefit of living in a society where most people have a minimum level of education. You can then hire these people and not have to pay to teach them how to read. > You also pay for the cost of public parks even if you never use them Maybe you personally somehow never enjoy seeing nature, I don't know. You still enjoy the benefit of a society where people get to see a little nature which is shown to make people happier and more productive, rather than everyone living in a bleak grey dystopian landscape.

mason240 10y ago
In this case, people without cars benefit from parking lots at stores, because store wouldn't be able to stay open if they only catered to people without cars. You still enjoy the benefit of a society where people get to choose their transportation and more be productive, rather than everyone living in a bleak grey dystopian city where everyone is riding the bus and can't control when or where they want to travel.
- lhc- 10y ago
  But the article doesn't argue for NO parking lots; it argues that FREE parking lots are the issue. The stores could stay open with paid parking, and could lower costs for non-drivers because they no longer needed to subsidize that free parking by charging everyone more.
  - tertius 10y ago
    "NO parking lots" is, in this case, analogous to "NO paying for parking lots."
  - ars 10y ago
    Any store that tried to make people pay for parking would go out of business equally as fast as one without parking. (i.e. in some places that would fly, in most it would not.) Your store or entertainment or whatever better be something absolutely unique and special for me to be willing to pay for parking. The reasons cities require stores to build free parking is otherwise people park in residential areas and annoy the residents with extra traffic.

by imgabe 10y ago

mason240 10y ago

In this case, people without cars benefit from parking lots at stores, because store wouldn't be able to stay open if they only catered to people without cars. You still enjoy the benefit of a society where people get to choose their transportation and more be productive, rather than everyone living in a bleak grey dystopian city where everyone is riding the bus and can't control when or where they want to travel.

lhc- 10y ago
But the article doesn't argue for NO parking lots; it argues that FREE parking lots are the issue. The stores could stay open with paid parking, and could lower costs for non-drivers because they no longer needed to subsidize that free parking by charging everyone more.
- tertius 10y ago
  "NO parking lots" is, in this case, analogous to "NO paying for parking lots."
- ars 10y ago
  Any store that tried to make people pay for parking would go out of business equally as fast as one without parking. (i.e. in some places that would fly, in most it would not.) Your store or entertainment or whatever better be something absolutely unique and special for me to be willing to pay for parking. The reasons cities require stores to build free parking is otherwise people park in residential areas and annoy the residents with extra traffic.